Originally Posted by
Sink r8
What happens when the company grows? You fail to capture the additional revenue. Airplanes have gotten bigger, on average, for 100 years. Why not participate in the company's ability to generate more revenue by carrying more per plane? Why would you want to incentivize fewer pilots, by having a flat rate per hour?
While some airplanes have gotten bigger, (A380, 747-8) Delta's fleet has gotten smaller, in the wide body world. At one time Delta had 55 L10-11's, AND 15 MD 11's. That's 70 wide bodies right there, DL alone, now add in what NW had 10 years ago in their 747 fleet, freighters and -400's.
Now, post merger, we only have 18 777's and 16 747's and 21 676-400's and about 30(?) A330's. Add all those up and you get roughly 85 wide bodies, at a combined DAL/NW. That's quite a bit less wide body Capt's and F/O's than 10 years ago.
AND NO NEW WIDEBODY ORDERS on tap...but hey, you'll look sweet in that 717 or 737-900, after you get displaced off the 767/757, right?
I think we should go with a longevity based system but have an annual pay raise, forever, not just a 12 year scale. A 30 year pilot would be making more than a 20 year pilot, who would be making more than a 12 year pilot. Why do we stop at 12years?
Now...what should we base our rates on?? What is the argument at the negotiating table?
The argument for our present system is "Productivity". ie. weight/speed/seats formulas from 70 years ago. Most people understand the concept that an airplane with 300 seats should pay more than one with 200, which should pay more than one with 100 seats.
So, when we go in to negotiate new rates for a Longevity Based Pay system, on what would we base our rates?